OK, seriously, I think even the leftists here can have fun with the brain exercises of coming up with which slurs actually would have paralleled the New Yorker original. Even though some of us might say something like, "I can't think of any slurs that aren't true! Bush is Satan incarnate!" there are *always* over-the-top attacks with any politician.(What makes the case of Obama different is the number of slurs, the degree to which people actually believe them, and the larger-than-usual share of the "attack market" they have. Whereas with Bush, far fewer liberal pundits have accidentally revealed an id of irrational Bush hatred or paranoia — they've simply pointed out the ways in which they disagreed with the administration's up-front policies. When was the last time you got an email attacking Bush *and* consisting of rumor instead of argument?).So for starters, we have the whole notion of Bush as a Nazi. Sure, modern neoconservatism may look imperialistic, anti-freedom, whatever, but I'm afraid it hasn't literally committed genocide, so that notion certainly counts as "beyond the pale" enough to be clearly satire when presented up front. (Whereas an association with Death isn't so much, because no one can deny that there are soldiers who would be alive today if it weren't for the Iraq war). So that means replacing Death with Hitler.Can anyone think of another one?
I just noticed the picture of oil and had to comment on it because I don't think anyone else has. Seriously, could anyone see one that as a parallel to the original's "Obama-Osama" thing? First of all, most Americans don't see oil as evil per se, and secondly, connecting Bush to oil is, um, not far-fetched at all. Whereas the other key elements are maybe a little over-the-top, in that Yes Bush has defiled the Constitution but No he wouldn't literally burn it, and Yes he has supported waterboarding but No he wouldn't literally keep a waterboard in the Oval Office.
I am presenting rational discourse (illustrating the double standard) - it just is way over your head and you don't understand it. Clearly DuggDowner and other Democrat Sock-Puppets can't hand rational debate - they know only what their handlers tell them to parrot (What did Huffington tell you to parrot today?)- everything else just confuses them and seems "irrational" to their simplistic thought processesCLUE: my message contains no personal attacks because I don't mention ANYBODY personally - DuggDowner, are you really that stupid or are you just pretending (THAT is a personal attack - nit wit)
dshplsJul 16, 2008
This is no better than the Obama cover, and that's not a good thing. Don't stoop to their level.
thesenator624Jul 17, 2008
Your straw men are showing. Might want to address that.
caseycooldJul 17, 2008
I don't think his wife was the primary target. You are a failure.
caseycooldJul 17, 2008
There was like ONE post to that effect. jeeze...
lenoxusJul 20, 2008
OK, seriously, I think even the leftists here can have fun with the brain exercises of coming up with which slurs actually would have paralleled the New Yorker original. Even though some of us might say something like, "I can't think of any slurs that aren't true! Bush is Satan incarnate!" there are *always* over-the-top attacks with any politician.(What makes the case of Obama different is the number of slurs, the degree to which people actually believe them, and the larger-than-usual share of the "attack market" they have. Whereas with Bush, far fewer liberal pundits have accidentally revealed an id of irrational Bush hatred or paranoia — they've simply pointed out the ways in which they disagreed with the administration's up-front policies. When was the last time you got an email attacking Bush *and* consisting of rumor instead of argument?).So for starters, we have the whole notion of Bush as a Nazi. Sure, modern neoconservatism may look imperialistic, anti-freedom, whatever, but I'm afraid it hasn't literally committed genocide, so that notion certainly counts as "beyond the pale" enough to be clearly satire when presented up front. (Whereas an association with Death isn't so much, because no one can deny that there are soldiers who would be alive today if it weren't for the Iraq war). So that means replacing Death with Hitler.Can anyone think of another one?
lenoxusJul 20, 2008
I just noticed the picture of oil and had to comment on it because I don't think anyone else has. Seriously, could anyone see one that as a parallel to the original's "Obama-Osama" thing? First of all, most Americans don't see oil as evil per se, and secondly, connecting Bush to oil is, um, not far-fetched at all. Whereas the other key elements are maybe a little over-the-top, in that Yes Bush has defiled the Constitution but No he wouldn't literally burn it, and Yes he has supported waterboarding but No he wouldn't literally keep a waterboard in the Oval Office.
lastvisibledogJul 21, 2008
I am presenting rational discourse (illustrating the double standard) - it just is way over your head and you don't understand it. Clearly DuggDowner and other Democrat Sock-Puppets can't hand rational debate - they know only what their handlers tell them to parrot (What did Huffington tell you to parrot today?)- everything else just confuses them and seems "irrational" to their simplistic thought processesCLUE: my message contains no personal attacks because I don't mention ANYBODY personally - DuggDowner, are you really that stupid or are you just pretending (THAT is a personal attack - nit wit)
s3rgi0_Aug 22, 2008
Yeah they did, then Bud Selig decided they couldn't do that again.